From: "Thomas R. Wier" <[log in to unmask]>

> Eh? Under what definition of polysynthesis is there any doubt that
> Georgian verbs are polysynthetic? I mean, verbs inflect for the
> person and number of the subject, direct object, indirect object, for
> tense, various kinds of aspect, mood, a number of valence properties,
> "version", etc.

I should've said that Georgian is polysynthetic, but not incorporating. Or
not as polysynthetic as Inuktitut or Cherokee. I read something about
different types of polysynthesis, that some languages have "optional
polysynthesis" (French might fall in this category). German also has a level
of incorporation, but not polypersonalism.

> It's not, actually.  It's a split-S system, as it has two classes of
> intransitive verbs, one mostly for unaccusatives that patterns like
> the notional direct object of first conjugation transitive verbs, and
> one for unergatives that patterns like the notional subject of 1st
> conjugation transitives.  The mixing you're thinking about concerns
> the behavior of precisely these transitives in the present series.
> (This is one area of the language I am currently researching.)

That's what's called 'version' right? I'm reading the online grammar at and it's confusing me. Kartvelian languages
just might have the most complicated verb grammar. But I've read Ket has a
scary verb system too. Sergei Starostin has a description of it in Russian
at, but you need to install his font
package to view the phonetic symbols.